Intelligent Design Debate Continues

Tranquility's comment on Miller's "Comment on The Flaw in the Mousetrap"All Miller has done is pointed out that some genes of Behe's systems have been reused. But we have admitted that on dozens of occasions. Miller has not explained what in-between steps are required and where the completely new genes came from. Miller is simply quoting rhetoric.Why doesn't a believer (in macroevoltuion) in this forum follow Miller's refs and summarise it? I've never seen a compelling example of molecular macroevolution yet. Just think, you could be the first in this forum to post actual evidence of molecular macroevolution as opposed to the similarity arguments posted in the thousands!

What are you talking about Quetzal?I believe the genomes were created as fully working sets of genes about 6000 years ago!I accept that the plasticity of the genome has allowed all sorts of point mutaitons, recombinations, gene losses and duplications. That part is trivial abd can occur quickly. Just throw a spanner in the works and let selection see what survives.These two aspects are easily married.I have no problem agreeing with much of Behe's work. It does not matter that he is convinced of common descent. He still points out that the cellular subsystems in both higher and lower lifeforms appear designed. I agree but disagree about common descent. I don't think Behe ever goes on record as to how much the I of ID contirbuted to the putting together of the subsystems in his version of common descent. If the I of ID tinkered non-stop then his version and ours only differ by the fact that his faith in the details of Genesis is weak.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-18-2002]

^ I'll answer in the rapid speciation thread.PS: Regarding the variations amongst creatonists compared to that among evolutionists?If we compare OECs with YECs, yes there is a bg difference. But, taking Behe as an example of an OEC, we (YEC and OEC) agree on the fundamental issue that the gene families and cellular systems were created by God de novo.Evolution? Most agree. But the debates on gradulaism vs punctuated equilibrium are not trivial and on the issue of how life actually came to be there is absolutely no consensus and a vast array of wild ideas.On the basic mechanisms of macroevolution that have made it such a supossedly systematic process, there is no consensus - it's pretty hard to have a consensus about something that nobody works on.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-19-2002]